Re: [tied] Re: Thematic vowel etc

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:04:27 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:59:41 +0000, tgpedersen
>> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>>
>> >>We cannot reconstruct any sentence connectives
>> >> for PIE,
>> >So? Latin _si_? Then?
>>
>> They are derived from the pronominal stems *swe and *to, not
>> the other way around.
>
>No, the other way around.

You derive *swe and *to- from *swo:, *swei and *ton(V)?

>> >>while we can reconstruct most of the demonstrative
>> >> pronouns in detail.
>> >
>> >That's true if demonstratives aren't composed of sentence
>> >connectives plus enclitic pronouns. Otherwise it isn't, since we
>can
>> >reconstruct most of the demonstrative pronouns in detail, and
>they
>> >in turn can be taken apart in that way.
>> >Let me quote Sturtevant "A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite
>> >Language" (p. 100):
>> >"If we search for a possible contrast in use between _nu_ and
>_ta_,
>> >we shall scarcely find another than to assume that _ta_
>originally
>> >meant "then, next" and was used particularly in narrative.
>Whereas
>> >the Indo-European languages present an excellent etymon for the
>> >connective _nu_ and none for the combined _na-as^_, nothing could
>be
>> >neater that the comparison of _ta-an_"et eum" and _ta-at_ "et id"
>> >with the IE _tom_ and _tod_.
>>
>> Sturtevant forgets that Hittite has got demonstrative
>> pronouns too, and kas, kan, apas, apan certainly aren't
>> decomposable into a sentence connective + enclitic pronoun.
>>
>
>We hereby declare that there existed a PIE sentence connective *k-,
>which survived only in compositions as demonstratives.

You're missing the point. If the demonstrative froms derive
from sentence connective + enclitic pronoun, and Hittite
still maintains that construction synchronically (ta-an "and
him"), then Hittite <ka-an> should mean "and/but him", which
it obviously doesn't: it's simply the accusative of <kas>.
Whatever the origin of the case forms of the PIE
demonstratives, they were formed long before Hittite started
combining sentence connectives with enclitic pronouns.

>
>> >"The conglomerate of _s^u_ with the enclitic pronoun gives
>> >_s^a-as^_, acc. _s^a-an_ etc. We may safely identify it with the
>> >defective pronoun see in early Lat. _sum_, _sam_, and _so:s. That
>is
>> >to say, we reconstruct IH _so_ beside _to_."
>>
>> There's no attempt at all to explain why ta and su differ in
>> vocalism. The Latin use of s-forms in the accusative is
>> atypical,
>
>Translation: this fact is rather inconvenient.

Not at all. The combined evidence of Indo-Iranian, Greek,
Tocharian and Germanic establishes beyond the shadow of a
doubt that the *s- was only present in the nominative
animate, and that all the other forms were based on *to-.
The creation of analogical nominatives *tos and *ta: (e.g.
Slavic) is unsurprising. In Italo-Celtic, the analogical
creation of a neuter *som (instead of *tod) besides m. *so
and f. *sa: (*si:), led to the creation of oblique forms in
s-, which is also unproblematic.

>>and we reconstruct PIE (Sturtevant's IH)
>> nominative *so, accusative *tom.
>>
>Who we? I reconstruct two, namely *s- plus enclitic pronoun, and *t-
>plus etc. When the accusative of the *s- demonstrative, *som,
>aquired a (or several) special meaning(s) ("one", "alone", "the
>same")

Nonsense. The accusative was *tom, and a shift frpom
accusative of "this/that" to "one", "alone", "the
same" is semantically absurd.

>from its use in reflexive sentences, the *s- demonstrative
>became defective and merged with the *t- demonstrative (but the *t-
>demonstrative survived in its entirety in some languages, eg.
>Slavic).

A better explanation, which doesn't ignore the evidence from
Sanskrit, Germanic, Greek, Tocharian, etc. was given above.

>> >>Besides Hitt. nu, -ma, -ya, and archaic
>> >> ta, su, Hieroglyphic Luwian for instance has (a)wa, -ha and
>> >> -pa. Not a single match.
>> >Of sentence connectives within Anatolian.
>>
>> Exactly. We cannot even reconstruct the pre-forms of ta and
>> su for Proto-Anatolian, let alone for PIE.
>>
>
>Let me see if I got this right: A Hittite word is IE only if it has
>cognates in the other Anatolian languages?

Or other IE languages.

>Given the size of the
>corpus of text in those languages?. You're joking, right?

No. The HLuwian corpus is big enough to establish that the
sentence connectives, which usually make an appearance in
every sentence, are (a)wa, -ha and -pa, which are unrelated
to the Hittite ones.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...